Autoblog reports the figures — found on the U.S. Department of Energy’s FuelEconomy.gov — were obtained through the Pentastar V6/nine-speed automatic/all-wheel drive combination found in the 200C and 200S, which returned 18 mpg in town, 29 mpg on the highway and 22 mpg combined. The figure also matches the outgoing 200, though it was front-drive only and possessed a weaker Pentastar V6 than the current 295 horsepower and 262 lb-ft of torque the 3.6-liter engine delivers.

Are there really enough brand loyalists out there to support a company that most buyers won’t even consider? Or are they trying to capture the cheapo market now that Hyundai and Kia have gone, erm, upscale?

It looks like a current 2014 ES350 with real wood, memory package for seats and wheel, real leather and nav and the required HIDs is well over 40K and that doesn’t include AWD and 295 HP. The Camry supplied 3.5 still makes 268 horses. The Lexus is roomier but neither is memorable to look at. Still if the 200 turns out to be reliable it does make for a good case on why it is necessary to spend 40-50k on a luxury model.

Had the new ES as a loaner yesterday. Liked it more than the older one. Agree on the stupid mouse, it’s hateful. New, I’d have to get the ES over this, the “stripper” ES is still nice. Used, they’re not in the same price range once they’re used so it’s not a fair comparison.

I agree it isn’t overpriced loaded at 36K but one can buy much better quality cars with a reputation for long term durability for 36K perhaps with less features. I believe a Volvo S60 T5 AWD can still be had for 36K.

@ Corey:
The best comparison I can make gives me a difference of about $8000 between the Lexus and 200.

I just optioned up a ES and top of the line Chrysler 200, each with nav and a sunroof. Rounded up or down to the nearest $1000:

ES350 with nav: $43000
200 with V-6 and pretty much every option available (I left out the fancy wheels or trick paint jobs): $35000

If you want AWD, that’s another $2000 or so on the 200; the Lexus doesn’t offer it.

Valid points about the 200’s unknown resale, and Lexus brand virtues, but I’d say that eight grand is a pretty substantial price difference. As far as resale is concerned, I just found several 2013 ES 350s in my area optioned up the same as the $43,000 2014 model for $35-38,000 or so, and that’s the asking price. Looks like Lexus’ resale ain’t what it used to be, at least on this particular model.

Also, as much as I like Chrysler, it’s worth pointing out that the Lexus is a full size-and-a-half larger. The ES now uses the Avalon’s wheelbase instead of the Camry’s, while the 200 is barely mid-sized. It sort of occupies a space between compact and mid-sized, where the previous Cadillac CTS models, Suzuki Kizashi, Volvo S60 and Buick Regal lay. I’m sure the Chrysler’s rear accommodations (or lack thereof) will be a deal-breaker for many.

@ FreedMike:
The fact that you get can such a good deal on a 1 year old ES 350 just makes it that much more appealing than the chrysler. Plus you get a roomier interior, more prestige, and RELIABILITY.

@carfan:
“The fact that you get can such a good deal on a 1 year old ES 350 just makes it that much more appealing than the chrysler.”

OK, but since when have we come to expect poor resale like this from a Lexus? If an ES350 that went for $43,000 a year ago is going for $35,000 now, with 13,000 miles, that’s the kind of resale hit that Lexuses are NOT known for. It sure surprised me.

Again, I don’t really think that the ES is comparable to the 200 from a size standpoint. I think (despite being RWD) that the Chrysler 300 makes a better comparison to the ES, since both are entry-level-luxury cars that are close in size. Ditto for the Hyundai Genesis (although the new 2015 one might have transcended that label).

Seriously? Just don’t see too many folks dropping over 30 large on the butt of a rent-a-car joke, even with a V6 and AWD. Unless you are going to drive it into the ground, the resale on a 200 would just be brutal. TCO, bitches.

It’s absolutely ridiculous that cars are being forced to have transmissions with this many gears. Who is realistically driving this car between 75mph and 100mph regularly? Most of the buyers will probably never see speeds above 70.

Not as much a pause as a CVT, says this Altima owner. 3 years is enough and I’m meh about it. Most of the time, especially on the highway and in flat terrain, it’s fine. City driving and hills are a challenge between the logic and my right foot. No more CVT for me, though nine speeds are a bit much.

It’s a lot of car for the money, but it’ll lose 20% it’s first year. A shame they couldn’t get it above 20 city, even for the numbers game. 30mpg with AWD and 300hp is still pretty good

Ssh…BTSR apparently gets a big part of his self-worth from framing entirely free market market choices as the rebellious consumer vs. the oppressive system. (Though with smaller words and far more caps lock.)

You might not live in one, but an increasing number of states are increasing thier rural freway limits. And the enforcement limit is almost always highter…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

I regularly drive 75 to 80 mph within the Dallas-Fort Worth area outside of rush hour. The posted speed limit on much of the NTTA toll roads is 70 mph so this is well within the police tolerance. There are cars traveling faster.

The speed limit on rural interstates in much of the Great Plains and Mountain West is 75 mph. Traffic flows at about 80 to 85 mph.

OK. Love turbos, but mostly in Saabs. I’m not convinced that every manufacturer will achieve the same balance of million-kilometer potential and great fuel economy. Most of them don’t come close with their non-turbo motors.

The picky maintenance that turbos demand turned me off, and the lag, ohh boy the lag, like I need that in something other than my computer.

Turbos are fine for the right sports car or, if you’re good with maintenance, old Volvos and Saabs. But to toss them into family sedans willy nilly is just silly.

You have to have the right transmission too, I test drove a Merkur once and turbo was useless for around town, getting on the highway whatever power the turbo gave was crippled by the automatic 3-speed.

Real world fuel consumption on an NA V6 vs. a turbo 4? The test favors the turbo far more than actual usage does. Also, regardless of MSRP real world transctions should also tilt towards FCA. I’d still pick the Ford for longevity even with the turbo, but I’m not sure that’s backed up by fact. Just my gut.

This generation might be good. If it is, and the next one is good,, and the one after that then people may begin to consider them against the likes of Lexus. This model is a 36k roll of the dice based on the generations that proceeded it. One model does not build a reliability reputation.

That nine-speed transmission would make me wait a couple of model years before considering one. That AWD V6 fuel-economy figure is less than what I’d need from a mid-sizer, but you don’t really need AWD where I live (since it’s not really any more helpful on the ice, which is all we ever get in the winter).

A 335 xDrive, which is in a similar size class (although obviously vastly more expensive) has a turbo 6 and a far more performance-oriented setup yet still hits 20/30/24. These numbers aren’t atrocious, but with the 9-speed I expected better.

I recently testdrove the Cadillac ATS. It’s a nice car, but the higher you go in the line, the prices get a bit ridiculous, over $50k for full zoot with AWD. The ATS is a good size for a typical commuter but kind of small for a family car. I don’t see the point of AWD for a car in this class; but then again, I don’t live in Buffalo. There might be room for the Chrysler 200 at the low end of the luxury segment. If so, though, they’ll have to keep the # of $22k base models in check.

Name another state-of-the-art midsize car you can get with AWD and a near 300hp V6 for under $30,000. I just priced a 200S on the Chrysler website, and it came in at $29,690 net price. Quit your bitchin’ dammit.

If you are looking for a 300+HP V6 engine and AWD for low-to-mid $30Ks right now, it’s hard to beat an Infiniti G37x. I’ve heard of them going for $36K recently. I’m guessing the handling will be much better than the Chrysler 200 and you get the RWD dynamics until the AWD needs to kick in. It may be a little dated, but I think it still looks great and is going to be a lot more fun to drive. You’ll take a little hit on gas mileage, though.

New model or not, the car’s an anonymous blob, it will depreciate like falling masonry, the Chrysler brand is so weak that the fully-loaded models won’t sell and the market will be saturated with base-model 4-cylinder penalty boxes sold to credit-criminals by a crappy dealership network, or sold by the pound to the rental fleets. Nothing worthwhile or aspirational to see here.